special forces officer who fought alongside the kurds.

>> before i begin i like to take a moment to remember my friend and our chairman, elijah cummings who we lost one week ago. like others on this committee at the pleasure privilege to call elijah at my friend for almost 20 years. we worked the many issues that confronted congress. mr. cummings has bequeathed the legacy of compassionate service to those families in our society who still struggle to receive the full promise of the american dream. while he had an abiding faith in the goodness and kindness of humankind he was firm in his commitment to use his many talents and his power of position to weigh-in in behalf of the disenfranchised and reduce the suffering that he saw in this world. elijah lived his life in a meaningful cause, a cause for justice and liberty and equality for all. we in our nation would be well served to follow his example and

spirit had presence here on this committee will be sorely missed. today we will examine the trump and ministrations decision to draw u.s. forces in northern syria and abandon our kurdish allies. as everyone knows how little more than two weeks ago president trump had a phone call turkish president or the one we don't know exactly what that transcript of that revealed but we do know the white house released the following statement about the call and i quote it here. turkey will soon be moving forward with its long planned operations into northern syria. the united states armed forces will not support or be involved in the operation and united states forces having defeated the isis territorial caliphate we will no longer be needed - excuse me, will will no longer be in the immediate area. nowhere in that statement is there any indication that he tried to delay presidents plan

of operation and indeed i think it could be interpreted as the statement facilitated that incursion. nowhere in the statement to the white house condemned turkish invasion and the destabilizing effects it would have and no where do the same and warned about the hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced only that the united states military will no longer be in the immediate the sanity. with that president trump ceded virtually all of the ability to influence events on the ground in northern syria. he abandoned our allies in the kurdish led democratic forces who for years were our partner in the most effective fighters against the zoning state in iraq and syria. as a result they will no longer be able to apply continue terrorism pressure against isis which will almost inevitably allow them to reemerge and

equally concerning is the power vacuum left by the lysates is already been felled by the syrian regime of asad, russia and iranian militias. the indifference to loyalty and life decisions on the phone with resident erdogan will result in disastrous consequences for the u.s. national security and has undermined u.s. credibility in the world stage. according to one kurdish fighter quote, america will never again be able to count on the courage to fight isis we don't trust america anymore. this is important so let me read the kurdish again. we don't trust america anymore. trump's betrayal of an ally and what it says about america will elect severe damage to american diplomacy, military strategy and foreign policy for many years to come.

don't take my word for it. president trump's most ardent supporters and former and ministrations officials have credit score decides decision with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says the withdrawal has quote, a grave mistake. senator lindsey graham has called the decision shortsighted and responsible with former secretary said if we don't keep the pressure on the isis will reemerge. it's a given that they will come back. last week 129 of my republican colleagues voted alongside two to 252025 democrats to oppose president trump's decision to withdraw u.s. forces from militant syria. to date we have the great privilege of welcoming [inaudible] executive president of steering the mechanic counsel and former special forces officer who fought alongside our kurdish spf allies in northern

syria. we are also joined by bernice from save the children to provide an update on humanitarian situations in syria as well as immediate [inaudible] director of policy and research at the group and a former diplomats. we are also pleased to welcome director of the cato institute. a quickly just takes note for our members as you have noticed their company by a translator and - it will require additional time to interpret questions and answers between members in the witnesses. i intend to hold members to the usual five minute time limit for questions i will allow extra time at my discretion if i determine that fairness requires granting a member additional time whether that member is democrat or republican.

i'd like to again thank our witnesses for your willingness to help this committee with its work. the chair and organizes the ranking member for five minutes for an opening payment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. likewise i present your comments about chairman cummings. obviously he and i and many on this side disagreed on many issues and i will say he was always very respectful and i have many conversations with him outside of this room and he was always respectful and will be greatly missed. i appreciate your comments. i would appreciate having this hearing today. likewise i want to thank our witnesses for being here specially i want to think mr. palmer for your service to our country. regretfully, many members today cannot be her because of the house majority having created a scheduling conflict and mr. chairman, as you know, house majority has scheduled a deposition as far as the

illegitimate impeachment inquiry and as a result the house majority is forced members to choose between this hearing and the deposition. despite the importance of this topic i believe the choice was unfortunately very easy for other members to make. arbitrary rules imposed by german chef have created an unprecedented secrecy around the inquiry and the next week members will be able to review the transcript of this hearing and follow-up with additional questions at our leisure. but the deposition and this partisan impeachment inquiry is not so cut and dry. the rules on who can access and how to access deposition transcripts are unclear and constantly changing. members of this committee sought to review transcripts have been turned away. for those few lucky members the democrats will let you get the

transcript, chairmanship has now insisted that will give members have democrat staff babysitters and who knows what other rules are coming. with changing roles shifting targets and unprecedented lack of chimpanzee the democrats impeachment upwards in the man demand report again members hold this to attention. back to the topic today. i'd like to say the videos emerging of individuals throwing rotten food at u.s. soldiers is important. both minimum and put everything on the line to further the goal of a safe and secure syria and should not be treated that way. the beginning in 2011 syria has been in a state of unrest and it began with the arab spring which led to a war all of the previous

administration stood on the sideline. then-president obama through his now infamous red line. president obama said it syria dictator asad was to use chemical warfare's it would warrant the united states military intervention about a year later when asad did use chemical weapons on his own civilians the obama administration gave the keys to russia in negotiating with syria. while there are now fewer chemical weapons in syria syria has gained significant influence. when he used chemical weapons in 2018 president trump to not bulk but instead wants to military strike of the significant sending a clear message to the assad regime that these chemical offense will not be tolerated. the continued efforts by the trump administration has led to the defeat of the isis caliphate and a significant weakening of islamic extremism in that region.

a few weeks ago present dropped announced the decision to withdraw troops from the border between syria and turkey. the role of the u.s. military is to protect vital u.s. interests, not to be a unilateral nation for armed insurgencies against a nato ally. previous administrations actions from from arming insurgents in latin america to intervening in iraq in libya have proven unilateral military action can indeed the problematic. in this situation it is no different. the syrian democratic forces of u.s. backed insurgency is comprised of members of the ytd, the ytd is a sponsor group of the pkk. if the u.s. and turkey registered foreign terrorist organization. it's no wonder why turkey is uncomfortable with this alliance. an article titled why is turkey fighting the kurds in syria in

"the new york times" further explains the connection and mr. chairman out asking endless content to submit this for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. sure everyone in his room as well as the trump administration as a whole is devoted to the safety and security of syria and the surrounding region but moreover, since were spending today discussing borders i think it's appropriate time that we recognize that the turkish syrian border is almost 6000 miles away. while no question this issue does merit review it's concerning to meet the democrats are more focused on the border crisis 6000 miles away then the crisis at our own southern border. during fiscal year 2019 alone customs and will patrol apprehended almost 1 million migrants at the southern border. it's an 80% increase increase over the previous year. many having criminal records.

i continue to call my democratic colleagues to provide our lot was meant many women the resources they need to solve this crisis. again, mr. chairman chairman i want to thank you for this hearing and each of our witnesses. i look forward to your testimonies and questions i had and i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. just as equivocation rules for access to hearings and depositions have not changed. at least in the past ten years. continue as they were under the republican-led house and those rules are still in place today. hopefully - i would beg to differ but this is not the time. members are not allowed to see those pins gets. >> we are honored to be joined today by executive president of

the syrian democratic counsel, he has been part of the kurdish struggle for freedom and democracy since the 1990s with particular with particular focus on women's rights. she joined today by a translator. i would like to thank you for being here and for your sacrifice on behalf of the international community in the fight against isis. we are very pleased to welcome mr. marty palmer, graduated from the united states military academy at west point and served combat tours in iraq and syria. he was what they tell us macarthur leadership award for outstanding leadership. he's not pursuing his mba at columbia business school. thank you for your service. thank you for helping this committee with this work. director of programs of research and in her ten year career as u.s. foreign service served up a medic tours in brazil, pakistan,

colombia, washington dc and the u.s. mission to the united nations. she is also a graduate of new york in diversity in the harvard kennedy school. we are fortunate to welcome the senior director of the international humanitarian policy and advocacy at save the children. she worked for several years as the advocacy and campaign director where she oversaw the international campaign of humanitarian crises, trade, aid, climate change, food security, health, education. oftentimes they are not recognized for the work and tech guys in the way they said so i thank you all for being here and your service. we like to welcome mr. john glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the cato institute, his research include grand strategy, u.s. foreign u.s. foreign policy in the middle east, rise of china and the role of status and prestige

motivation and international politics but he is been a guest on the variety of television radio programs and is the co-author with [inaudible] of fuel to the fire how trump made america's broken foreign policy even worse and how we can recover. mr. glaser, thank you for being here today. we we look forward to learning from your policy. i now like to ask the witnesses to please rise to be sworn in and include the interpreter. raise your right hand. do you swear and affirm that has money to about to get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you got? let the record - thank you. let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative. microphones are sensitive so make sure he please pull them up so you can be heard. without objection your written

statement will be made part of the record and with that you are now organized for your oral presentation of your testimony. [speaking in foreign language] translator: i like to think the campus for their support and for this opportunity. [speaking in foreign language] translator: my condolences for your colleague. [speaking in foreign language] >> came from syria. and there was a heavy fight ongoing for years. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we have lived in that war moment by moment and at

the same time by going for the future. [speaking in foreign language] translator: our people with christians we build a society together and liberated 30% of the syrian land. [speaking in foreign language] translator: all faith in our religion are free to express themselves freely. [speaking in foreign language] translator: syria is christians and muslims. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we continue to live in harmony after isis.

[speaking in foreign language] translator: in the fight against isis we lost 11 fighters. [speaking in foreign language] translator: 25 people were disabled in the fight. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we appreciate american forces for their fight for us. [speaking in foreign language] translator: after they liberated these areas they had not give opportunity to show what we worked for. [speaking in foreign language] translator: all this increased

threats over us. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we had a good relation with the u.s. government enforces. [speaking in foreign language] translator: in terms of fighting against isis but also realizing our hopes to build a democratic future will build stability in the region. [speaking in foreign language] translator: they told us if we continue fighting -- [speaking in foreign language] translator: we been together to work together. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we will be in syria until the political solution is

achieved on the ground. these other promises. [speaking in foreign language] translator: then we came under attack and they told us we have no power so we cannot help you. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we were told where our forces exist we won't allow attacks. [speaking in foreign language] translator: for those reasons we thought american forces and trusted them. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we believe we thought when there was an attack in the region we do not expect them to fight on our behalf but we were sure they would do that. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we put our hope to

coexistence to live together with the people in the region. [speaking in foreign language] translator: one day before the attack we were under assumption that the airspace would be closed by the u.s. [speaking in foreign language] translator: the established -- we agreed upon to prevent attack of turkish state. [speaking in foreign language] translator: through our forces we destroyed the trenches on the border and we put our heavy weapons for joined forces that have already stopped.

[speaking in foreign language] translator: unfortunately, after the phone call we were told it would be open in our forces would be withdrawn from the border area. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we were shocked and puzzled. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we did not hope this would happen. as a result of this we found out the fight with turkish state and we defended ourselves. turkish government came and fought against us. [speaking in foreign language] translator: forces us to fighting against isis

[inaudible] without any reason. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we never had any threat against the turkish. [speaking in foreign language] translator: as a result of this war around 300,000 people are displaced. 250 people killed. the majority of these were kids and children. [speaking in foreign language] translator. people have disappeared, unaccounted for. [speaking in foreign language] translator: moreover, a city was devastated for mortars and

airstrikes. our forces were killed. [speaking in foreign language] translator: open excuse executions took place. [speaking in foreign language] translator: the turkish government has used a crime against humanity. they've used chemical gas. [speaking in foreign language] translator: until now were not able to do this inspection because we don't have means to get perspective. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we very much want to stop this war. we were always told we cannot stop it.

[speaking in foreign language] translator: as of now 32 kilometers in death death are occupies by turkish states. [speaking in foreign language] translator: there are many ices under the name of [inaudible] [speaking in foreign language] translator: they swear that they will behead you.

and they chant the same slogans of isis. [speaking in foreign language] translator: they are called opposition but they are different form of isis which are put forward by turkey. [speaking in foreign language] translator: there were some attacks against isis numbers but many escaped. [speaking in foreign language] translator: from the family's 600 people escaped. six front isis fights and two in belgium. [speaking in foreign language] translator: ten more escaped but we don't know what nationality they are therefrom. [speaking in foreign language] translator: there's a big risk that the safety of international

and the u.s. can be unaffected again. [speaking in foreign language] translator: the guy who carried out the new york attack is under detained by us now. [speaking in foreign language] translator: there are some turkish government that will take care of this and this is wrong. [speaking in foreign language] translator: our geography is now divided. [speaking in foreign language] translator: the group group controlled by turkish government is technically us to drive. [speaking in foreign language]

>> you have to instruct the witness that we are over time. [speaking in foreign language] translator: one of her female friends, a buddy, was mutilated and they sat on her body. >> understand you have photographs. i'd like to make a motion that her photographs are entered into the record but i understand numbers have been provided copies but if you are willing to submit the originals we will put those into the record. [speaking in foreign language] translator: we suspect chemical gas use.

[speaking in foreign language] translator: christian kit has been murdered and the displacement of civilians. [speaking in foreign language] translator: this was a female fighter in her body was mutilated in this photo. and five. translator: these are the soldiers that the turkish government is claiming to be the opposition. [speaking in foreign language] >> thank you for your testimony with mr. palmer you're not recognized.

>> chairman lynch, thank you for inviting me here today. my name is martin palmer and appear to testify to my personal experience working alongside the syrian democratic forces during my time in active duty. it's common under u.s. policy strategy in syria. by way of background after graduating from us point in 2009 as benign dollars years in the army as a special forces officer. during my military service of his awarded a medal and two bronze star metals and at 2018 recipient of the general douglas macarthur leadership award. i've served three display deployments. i left active duty in july of last year. and 2017i spent seven months in syria serving as the commander

of a special forces attachment and drain the supplement by team of green berets partnering with the sdf of which the kurds comprise a large portion. through combat operations as operas and the commitment, dedication and resilience of the sdf. their efforts proved critical to our ability to combat the islamic state. during the coming patrol of the frontlines team and i received perspective fishing on fire from all positions. upon receiving contact the sdf soldiers fought alongside the attempt to locate and destroy the enemy positions. within minutes sdf area commander right my position with additional soldiers and was by my side during the fight even as bullets peppered our position we were able to illuminate the threat. this day invite mentality is not what i witnessed in other partnered forces during my previous departments to the middle east. this is the first of many experiences in syria when i observed commitment, bravery

and dedication of the sdf is a partnered with mike detachment against the fight of the islamic state. the kurds were an effective partner force and made remarkable progress and track the state and liberating several key islamic town including the software claimed caliphate of rock. the kurds raise their hand to fight these allstate went to many did not. i witnessed the successes on the field regularly. they fought with discipline and resolve. on numerous occasions when the sdf meeting with arthur areas recently liberated the syrian villagers cheered and even cried. a moving testament to the immense contrition the sdf have made to liberate people from the horse of life under the islamic state. the success came at a cost. at the of cassidy's were regularly and the tragic occurrence with thousands of soldiers giving allies for this mission. during month operation these

allstate fighter detonated a car bomb in one position of the sdf unit with the most partner. the car bomb killed eight soldiers and wounded close to a dozen more. my team provided first aid for the wounded and many had gruesome injuries. i saw% the very real and powerful way the magnitude of the sacrifice the kurds are making in the fight against the islamist state. moreover, they continued their offense the next day to mistreating resiliency and commitment that was prevalent throughout my deployment. our relationship was a true and critical partnership and just admitting benefited from their tactical abilities the sdf could not have been as successful against these allstate without our support. during one operation fighters were in with a few hundred yards of our objective and started received sustained fire and suffered several casualties. they do not have the capabilities unilaterally suppress the threat and were prepared to draw to prevent further casualties within days

of hard-fought gains. however my team is able to provide the necessary combat power to ensure the safety of the sdf and successfully press forward with their mission seeking is a state position. this was a medic of our relationship with the sdf and a partnership partnership built on mutual trust, support and necessity. these examples are a few of the many instances that illustrate how valuable the partner for mike detachment. sdf should shoulder to shoulder and fought courageously and effectively time and time again. their loyalty and dedication is pervasive in every operation. i will always value the relationship my team had with them and will never forget the sacrifice he made to beat the islamist state. thank you again, mr. chairman. i hope my testimony will help shed light on what is like to work shoulder to shoulder with curtis soldiers to seven months of my diploma to syria. thank you. >> thank you for your service

and your willingness to testify before this committee. mr. torres went out recognized for five minutes for a presentation of your oral testimony. >> thank you. thank you for hearing my testimony today. today i will emphasize the perceived consequent as of our policy reversal in syria on our ability to defeat isis. the president's decision to withdraw u.s. troops from northern syria which allows for turkish military invasion is a foreign policy that has plunged syria further into chaos. beyond lives lost, deal political conferences the scar on your desk ability the decision is a gift to isis. with an hours of the announcement to isis suicide bombers attacked the base of the syrian terra-cotta forces.

isis social media has really marked the sdf over the last week calling it an abandoned american ally and isis websites supported 27 attended attacks against the sdf in the weeks following the invasion compared with an average of ten attacks over over each of the previous three weeks. leader of isis emerged as the followers to free jihadists from detention camps in an attempt to replace its breaking the wall campaign. in august 2019 respected general report concluded there was a resurgence in syria and [inaudible] while they that was considered the end of the physical caliphate remnants of isis still exist. this includes sleeper cells. the group maintains a footprint to a bevy of groups. should be greatly concerned about the conditions of the prisons for 12000 isis fighters are being held by the syrian democratic forces. sdf made clear on before the

troop withdrawal that they lack the capacity to contain the fighters. following the turkish invasion sdf has been departing these positions leaving the presence honorable. there have been no concrete plans about how the prisons will be secured and now the night states has abandoned the kurds by willie beck them to do us any more favors. isis bulletins civilians are escaping prison camps. last week they had knowledge several isis militants crossed into iraq and according to belgian authorities five other citizens are no longer present in sdf controlled locations. over 800 people at the leader with isis largely women intolerant have escaped a camp in north syria. a whole camp hosted 70000 people is proving to be a briefing ground for isis is pro isis's of the site summarizes our

radicalizing and organizing in the camp. the overcrowding, like a security and squalid conditions of the camp recipe for disaster. we know how this movie ends. tens of thousands of iraqis were held in u.s. citizen centers including [inaudible] and these overcrowded camps on next generation of terrorists emerged. these prisoners became the future but hold or put soldiers of isis. the groups leadership breaking the wall skipping with thousands of fighters. the issue of overcrowded detention centers sponsored another wave of terror and was relevant again once in syria. they maintain provinces from syria to indonesia and across the middle east. the group has planned or inspired heinous terrorist attacks globally including in the united states. isis ability to organize to not be underestimated and the risk of prison escape must be taken seriously.

u.s. policy change in syria has empowered our adversaries and betrayed our allies. the kurdish forces have been the u.s. most trusted partner inviting isis over the last five years. kurds lost 11,000 fighters in the battle and taken up the immense response fully regarding 120,000 people in camps and prisons across syria. the presence of u.s. troops on the border even small number was intended to both support the kurds as they engage in fighting for us and to serve the tripwire to deter attacks. i conclude by highlighting three recommendations. first, military options should never be the only solution to conflict. we need diplomacy with the united states should encourage turkey to pursue dialogue with the kurds. second, isis is researching and we need a plan. we must mitigate the risk of escaping isis fighters to ensure they cannot cross borders into neighboring countries. to do this we need to have open

lines of medication with the powerbrokers in the region. third, western governments must take responsibly for the citizens and isis prisons and camps. they should take their citizens back home where they can undergo risk assessments, have prosecution and engage in reintegration efforts. ignoring the problem will only fuel the cycle of marginalization and grievances and attract individuals to join terrorist groups in the first place. in closing, u.s. troop withdrawal from syria is self-defeating and damage to the american ability and walks back much of the hard-earned gains made by the sdf and the noble coalition to defeat isis. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and afford to your questions. >> thank you ms. torres. ms. romero went out recognized for a five minute presentation. >> thank you i first want to think chairman lynch for this hearing and the opportunity to speak to the community in crisis that is devastating syrian communities. humanitarian needs nearly

2 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and 5 million of these are children and impact half of all children now living in syria have grown up knowing nothing but war. say the child has reached a and in the refugee hosting country we have seen how to suffer in the conflict in great physical and mental wounds that may be irreparable. was close closing and minimal support for mental health we are witnessing in real time loss of a generation. remarks will focus on three topics, northeast syria including recent facilities and issues related to foreign families went to isis, northwest syria and finally the rising threat of force interns. in the past two weeks more than 160,000 people 60000 people including more than 70200 have been displaced in the fighting and many are living in camps and informal settlements which are short on communitarian infrastructure. despite the recent cease-fire

announcement you seen continued hostility and they have been killed and injured in the fighting and schools have been attacked and other services have been shut down. while we and others are able to continue our programs in some areas this new instability is severely strained our response with many india offices and programs suspended or closed down. there's much of u.s. government do to help improve the situation. primarily the u.s. will that diplomatic leverage to past four cessation of hostility and protection of civilians. immediate needs such as medical care and food must be a priority to u.s. other donors cannot forget about the medium to long-term needs including mental health and psychosocial support as well as access to education

for the hundreds of thousands of children caught up in the violence. further, gator the situation is the presence of thousands of foreign women and children with perceived or real affiliations with isis. in the wake of the conflict with isis in syria and iraq a large population of foreign nationals have been living in this placement camps across syria. 12300 nationals have been present in camps and this includes 9000 children for more than 40 different nationalities and more than 8000 of these children are under the age of 12 or more than 4000 are under the age of five. save the children is operational which houses the foreign women and children and the conditions having challenging. even for these events critical gaps across all sectors including health, education and protection.

foreign children trapped in syria are victims of the conflict much be treated as such rather than look at as terrorists. many were brought or trafficked into syria or were born there over the course of the conflict. given the life-threatening dangers they and their families face save the children calls on government to repatriate them to their country of origin. we sense the u.s. for its policy of repatriating american citizens in these camps and for pressing other nations to do the same. to ensure child protection this must take place as soon as possible is still feasible. we can't forget about the mess and needs in northwest. in 2019 conflict has raised the cost [inaudible] with 1 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance half of which are children with save the children is calling on all parties to de-escalate the conflict in the note. the one security council resolution 2165 which ensures cross borders humanitarian access in syria from turkey and iraq must be new to this leadership is key to ensure the violation of fundamental human rights and international laws is designed to protect civilians does not become the new normal. finally we can forget millions of syrian refugees.

refugee response funding needs have doubled over the past five years and the last must continue to allocate robust funding for the rest of the response and press others to do the same. the u.s. has been cleared about his opposition to force returns and let's continue to stress the returns of refugees or asylum-seekers should be volunteer and dignified. one hundred years ago save the town founder said every war is war against children. syria is no exception yet before recent events the world could barely into notice with the dangers that was headlined the conflict in syria will again pull off the radar screen e ........ , ms. romero.

>> mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee. thank you for you for the privilege of having me here to speak today. the united states became track the modern syria early in the civil war and the focus was on undermining the assad regime by providing aid to various armed opposition groups. primary security rationale for our increased involvement in syria in recent years was to destroy isis and all the remnants of the group remain that objective has largely been met and makes good strategic sense to withdraw. i'll say at the outset the manner in which the administration initiated this a draw was clumsy and injected unnecessary risk in instability. i will address that more in a minute. the justifications for a continued u.s. military presence in syria has expanded well beyond the initial reason for their deployment and went from

defeating isis to protecting the kurds to push back against russian and iranian influence in the country and serving as a buffer to protect israel from regional enemies and helping usher in a post assad syria and securing oil fields. is a classic case of mission creep. it amounts to letting the united states slip further into a middle east war without clear objectives, without serious scrutiny about what is achievable and without a public debate that includes a vote in congress authorizing the mission. there has been a number of contradictions in our syria policy. we knew undermining the assad regime in creating power to its independent portions of the country might generate more instability and live in a dangerous rebellion and we continued to pursue this policy. we knew there were substantial numbers of jihadist terrorist then the rebel opposition groups but we continue to eat them until recently. turkey is a nato ally. we have pursued a tactical alliance of convenience with the kurds to battle isis.

aiding and arming and allying with two adversarial entities is not only a contradiction of sorts but seems destined for an inevitable and better transition away from that. it was a mistake to have offered or implied any promises to the kurds that we were fully prepared to deliver. an autonomous kurdish state in northern syria is implausible scenario given the situation on the ground and i think it put the kurds in more danger. with regard to the process of this withdrawal. the president ordered this change in policy completely outside the interagency process and that makes for a messy implementation. the administration failed to employ sufficient diplomatic muscle to help carryout responsible withdrawal.

the deliberate we should have had a deliberate dialogue with turkey for example. long before any announcement to draw as distasteful as it may be the us probably should've worked with the mask is to facilitate a formal arraignment with gerd to allow syria to reassert its sovereignty over those territories and not prevent the kurdish incursion and attack on the kurds. this would have helped assuage their concerns while also deterring further action and we could have engaged in this arrangement months ago and in fact the report suggests that they discouraged those talks and yet that arraignment is what is falling into place between the rashad regime and i should mention that the former commander of u.s. central command general [inaudible] has signed on to that approach and the united states probably should have stuck to cooperation with russia both u.s. and russia

want stability and prevent the reemergence of isis both have reasons to oppose turkish incursions into syria and moscow have leverage leverage over damascus and we have leverage over [inaudible] and these are opportunities for the pharmacy to take place but did not. bottom line is that active and skillful the pharmacy wasn't the best tool for serving u.s. interest in syria allowing a smooth as possible to draw. going forward the united states should pressure turkey terrain from further tactics in syria and washington should lend quite support to negotiations but not seek to be an active participant. the economic sanctions the congress is prepared to impose may send an appropriate signal but our largely symbolic. decisions alone for the report track record of altering the behavior and no one should expect them to have much tangible impact in this case. should the united states determine the future department to syria is necessary for its

entrance it's incumbent on this body to openly debate it and ultimately to vote on authorizing the use of force. a unilateral decision by the second branch to keep residual forces therefore we deploy at a later date is subject to congress constitutional prerogative and more recently the powers act. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. to put a finer point on that i do know for mistress testimony in senate that james jeffrey who's the special representative for the syrian engagement and the special envoy to the global coalition to defeat isis was not consulted in this decision so at this point i'd like to welcome my neighbor and colleague. we welcome her to the committee and i'd like to welcome the gentleman from kentucky and i would like to make a motion to allow both ms. presley to

participate and to engage in questioning when their time arrives but without objection, so ordered i know you'll myself for five minutes for questioning. >> a number of us on this committee had been to all of the syrian refugee camps going back to the early days of conflict between assad regime and some of the rebel groups in aleppo and elsewhere in syria. we traveled to up in the north to [inaudible] up by we went to beirut where many of the refugees fled and also to [inaudible] which is the camp in

jordan about 85000 refugees and what do you know about that was all before the turkish incursion that we are now witnessing and is there any data or information you have with respect to the current situation and what may have been exacerbated by the withdrawal of u.s. troops and then the subsequent invasion and incursion by doctor sic troops. what has that on to the flow of refugees to these camps and elsewhere? >> your microphone. >> we don't have hard numbers yet. finally, the situation changes every day. basically what we have seen his movement from the populations that were in the area weather that has been violence and further south and they have been

setting up informal shelters in taking over schools in different buildings and have very overcrowded conditions with difficulties delivering services they are in reaching people they are. most of the humanitarian agencies have had to drop their international staff and syrian local staff has made active and has been delivering services to the moving pipe relations as much as possible and they are operating in a very secure environment and some of them have become refugees and decided to leave for fear of the changes that may happen and fears of conscription and fears of violence because of what is going on. lots of publishing movement and we've seen thousands of people moving into iraq and we think that the camp that was set up

there will be at maximum capacity and if the float is continuing at this level. lots of strain on the services and movement. >> thank you. we did have a chance to visit with king [inaudible]. the jordanian schools on the border have gone to two shifts so that dirty knee and kids go to school in the morning to early afternoon and then syrian can kids come in in the afternoon. it's amazing that the dirty indians and in beirut the similar situation where local kids go to school in the morning and refugee kids in the same school so but in homage pressure. ...

the first thing we have to recognize is if we don't take people back to their home countries we are only read redoing the cycle if we don't take citizens back and provide them with justice in their own

countries. what i understand they've taken what i understand they've taken their citizens back captioning performed by vitac we've met with other governments to talk to them about perhaps changing their legal systems. i know a lot of european countries, for example, have had a difficult time because their sentencing and charges allow for maybe two to five years imprisonment and they're scared and concerned about what happens when terrorists are freed. there are ways to go about that, you can change your laws, legislation, you can develop parolelike programs that would allow for a smoother transition for terrorists to rehabilitate.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned that the fall of isis, so to speak, in your testimony. since that time under what authority has the u.s. utilized to stay in the region? >> none. there is no legal authority for u.s. military presence on the ground in syria. what's often cited is the 2001 aomf which through three presiden presidencies now have been expanded and stretched. the language in that legislation authorizes the use of force against al qaeda and anyone who aided or harbored them. we've targeted under this bill

groups that has nothing to do with 9/11, groups that are enemies of al qaeda, groups that didn't exist at the time of 9/11 and it's gone from iraq, syria, afghanistan, pakistan, libya so this is a real problem. >> would it be your opinion, then, that the withdraw of troops that the president just ordered was really necessary under the current legal framework. >> yes. but he quadrupled the number of troops on the ground in his first year in office. but it is true that congress has not done in its job -- >> i don't think anyone up here would question that. but it is a complicated issue. whether we're dealing with a humanitarian need or peace keeping efforts, whatever, on a

long-term scale basis, what kind of legal framework would be necessary. >> if u.s. troops are needed, then congress needs to authorize that. u.s. troops should be used in order to defend eminent threats to this territory and people. peace keeping missions through the u.n. might be a different situation. in terms of other legal authority, i think we need to pay close attention to the strategic justifications for why we're there. there's a substantial academic literature in political science demonstrating that when external powers involve themselves in a civil war on multiple parties, has the effect of exacerbating and prolonging that conflict and that's what we've done from the beginning. >> i hear people ask me this

when i'm in the district, this type of question, i think it's appropriate here. we've got some 40,000 veterans here in america homeless, some numbers go up to six million or so children, family members who are hungry and yet there is this constant helping of people in other countries that need help. i'm not trying to belittle that at all or diminish the need. but the fact of the need that we have here, how do you respond to that? >> i certainly think it's important for this government to have as a priority its own people. and i think what's more incumbent upon us is to not make things worse aboard, do no harm, rather than take it upon

ourselves to view every problem as an american one to be solved. the other problem with this, is when we do find it worthwhile to go aboard, to fix problems and help people, we often have the bad habit of seeing things only through a military prism. it's like our military is our only tool when in fact diplomacy and aid have a going for them and can do things at cheaper costs and with greater humanitarian benefits. >> one other question and my time is going to run out. going back to the previous administration with chemicals red line and the inaction that came as a result of that, what kind of an impact do you think that had on where we are at right now. >> i think it's been greatly exaggerated. the issue of credibility, and it's taken to be a justification

for all kinds of u.s. military interventions, but states tend to pay close attention to the circumstances at hand and not extrapolate with other locations and situations. so the fact that we -- it would have been wrong frankly for the united states to bomb syria as punishment for chemical weapons. chemical weapons have a special place in our mind, but the vast majority of deaths have come from bombs and bullets. it's irrational to create this special category and justify the best military action, which did not have congressional approval and illegal under international law since i didn't have security council approval. >> thank you, i yield back. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. first, i would like to ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the current issue of the economist magazine,

the cover reads, who can trust trump's america: the consequences of betraying the kurds. the article inside the magazine goes into greater detail and the subtitle there is removing syrian troops from syria betrayed an ally and trashed the national interest. there was a sub article that focuses particularly on the history of the kurds and the subtitle there is america's abandonment caps a century of global duplicity. that's really the subject of this hearing and this is one of the most influential magazines in the world. it's a british magazine. this is apparently what the english-speaking world thinks of america's recent policy reversal. the second focus would be

mr. palmer, i have the privilege of representing nashville, tennessee, and i am a use fan of special forces. not to take anything away from the 82nd airborne, but i admire you and your career, west point, two bronze stars, the mcarthur award and i'm proud that you're continuing your service by being willing to testify today. and your firsthand view of what it's like to fight with kurds by your side and when you pointed out in your testimony how relatively rare it is for allies in the middle east to stand and fight with you should be testimony that's heard by everyone on this committee. and actually this is one of the few bipartisan issues in congress because the vote was

overwhelming, 129 republicans being willing to vote that the recent policy reversal was a huge mistake. that was a breakthrough and i hope that more and more republicans will listen to your testimony and understand what a vital ally the kurds have been and this policy reversal is a deeply felt betrayal. no one knows what it's going to be like and i hope the recent announcement that the cease-fire will be permanent, wouldn't that be great. otherwise the kurds face one of the largest armies in the world, the turkish army who have been known to show no mercy and as the gentleman from georgia repeated in his opening remarks, is it just turkish propaganda when they link the two groups. these are deep issues, but our allies should not be abused.

it goes without saying that most of our colleagues know that the turks have recently bought the s-400, russian air defense system. that is not a nato-friendly move. that is not a u.s.-friendly move. i'm worried that the fundamental problem is that we've given into russian foreign policy interests in the region and perhaps built a land bridge from iran to the golan heights. so that to me is what is really at stake here and to abandon our best friends, our fighters, was a tragedy. mr. palmer, i don't know if you care to elaborate on your policy since you're the only person who's had firsthand military experience and fight with the kurds by your side. >> my time in syria, the kurds were a very reliable and dedicated partner force.

every combat operation we were on, they were by our side with us, fighting along side us. and that commitment to my team and our mission as a whole was something that we really valued and enabled our success. >> did they look like terrorists to you? >> congressman, i saw sdf unit that was dedicated and had a lot of resolve and commitment to fighting the islamic state. >> would we have been as successful in taking on isis without the help of the kurds? >> congressman, i don't know about specific other policy proposals. i can speak to my experience over there, the kurds and sdf absolutely were instrumental in our success against the islamic state. >> didn't they suffer 11,000 deaths and we had, what, six? >> we greatly valued the security that they provided to my team and that added support

made my unit safer over there as well. >> but that's a disproportionate sacrifice on their part when they suffer 11,000 casualties and we take six. i see that my time is expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service. we appreciate that. would you agree with me the following recipe, good process gets you good policy, gets you good politics. would you agree with that? >> i'm not qualified to speak on policy. >> would you care to weigh in on that, good process gives you good policy, gives you good politics. >> seems reasonable to me. >> that's what i think. back to you, again, i want to go through this in my mind and make sure. back in 2013 when obama decided

to strike within syria, 2013, congress was actually put on notice, were they not? >> they were. >> so at the time republican leadership and this year under democratic leadership an aumf could have been brought up that quick. >> yes. >> so let me get this straight. we keep hearing everybody talking about a congressional role of congress. would you consider that both leadership from both parties let the kurds down. >> yes. >> interesting. interesting. seeing that they're the ones that dictate the process. ms. torres, do you believe that a large-scale effort by the u.s. military is required in syria? >> i think that we need to stay vigilant about what's happening in syria, what's happening in iraq with regards to the

resurgence of isis and i think we need to continue to assess and remain vigilant and continue to monitor the situation. i think that the withdrawal of troops out of syria at this time was a bad idea, especially the way that it was done, without any notice, without any preparation. and it's allowed for our kurdish allies to take the brunt of the conflict and it's also left us in a position where we're no longer in a good position to assess what's happening with isis. we have isis militants and those that are in these camps that are escaping. >> i got limited time. how many u.s. servicemen were actually removed from syria? >> i understand about 1,000. >> let's say 28 from that zone that were moved back into syria, further back. that's 28. that's the number we're talking

about. would you agree with me that's the number? >> there's a number of things going on. the initial order from trump to relocate about the number that was reported is 50 to 100. i know the president says 28, was to relocate within somewhere in syria. then things unfolded and it seems to be the policy to withdraw all of them with the exception of 200. >> it seems to be. but what we know of is there's 28. let me go back through this. i got some limited time. in world war ii, we had a number of allies, did we not? >> yes. >> was one of them the ussr? >> yes. >> and what did we do after we won that war? did we instantly try to help the soviet union? >> excuse me, did we try to help

them? >> yes. >> no. pretty quickly after the war ended, we engaged in mutual suspicion -- >> cold war happened, did it not? >> yes. >> can you tell me a little bit after world war i europeans' idea of breaking up the middle east. was there at one time for a proposal for a different stand, kurdish stand was one of them. >> my understanding of the history is that that was in discussion at the time, but didn't work out that way. >> let me ask you a question, how long have we been fighting this war on this piece of sand? >> the united states? >> no, the war of all these people in this area. how long have we been fighting on this piece of sand? >> which war are you referring to? >> all of them. we've been fighting from before christ. >> right. >> has there been any resolve?

>> there are a number of different conflicts in the region and you have to speak about them specifically to say anything meaningful about them, i think. >> let me ask you a question. we've hailed the barn storm at the president, but we got a stalemate right now. >> yeah. >> the analogy of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result insanity. >> i think that applies to our policy. >> wouldn't it be nice that we tried something a little bit different? >> i should hope so. >> and i would say maybe it's awkward the way this was turned out, but what if it turns out to be something that can actually work out. >> that would be to everyone's benefit, but i think the reversal of the process where trump orders a withdraw and then we scramble to fix it with diplomacy should have been done the right way around the first time. >> i yield back.

>> gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from vermont is recognized. >> thank you. and i want to thank the witnesses. your country has suffered so much for so long and our heart goes out to you. i want to raise a question about how this happened. it really goes to what you're saying. there's a number of people on the other side of the aisle who have a view and i share it that we should not be in as many of these long-term conflicts as possible, but i want to ask some questions about what the cons are of the way in which the president of the united states acted with literally no notice to our allies, no notice to the

department of defense, no notice to anybody. and we are seeing the creation of an unnecessary and total avoidable humanitarian disaster. that's the concern i have at this moment. so some of the questions that i have are about who is in that band that is affected by the turkish incursion. you might have the best statistics. how many people live in that area that is subject to the turkish incursion? >> it's difficult to estimate. i've seen numbers in the millions, but i'm not sure if my colleagues might have better numbers. >> how do we not know before the president went in there, how many people would be in the line of fire. mr. palmer, do you have any idea what the population is in that area? >> no, congressman.

>> translator: in the border area, approximately 3 million people are living. not only this area, but also west of the area and also my hometown. >> let me go on, what i understood is 160,000 or so people have been displaced. >> that's correct. >> and they -- this means they're not in their home, right? they went to bed the night before the president made the phone call and the day after that, they didn't have a home, right? where do they go? >> so i think some have gone to camps, some have gone to idp camps -- >> what camps? we don't have the camps there to accommodate. they're all overfilled already.

mr. palmer one of the extraordinary things about the military is the capacity to do logistics, to plan, to execute a very complicated mission. logistics 101 before you take an action that's going to displace 160,000 people. >> i don't think i'm qualified to respond to that. >> i appreciate your discipline. but it's like obvious. if you're going to do something where 160,000 people are going to have to leave their homes and you feel some responsibility because it's the action you're allowing or taking, you're going to make some arrangements. i will ask you this, you spoke about just the fighting force and the extraordinary band of brothers situation you had with kurdish allies, right?

but there were also syrian fighters who were standing up to that monster assad who lived in that area as well, correct? >> most of my operations were specifically with the sdf. i know there were other groups out there, but mine was specifically the sdf. >> but there were many members who were standing up to assad. you're right about the -- the plan should come first, not just the phone call. my friend, mr. erdogan, do what you wish. how -- what is the peril to the arab fighters living in these cities now that the russians and the assad regime has free hand to roam around there. do you have any apprehension that reriseles will occur? >> yes.

and although i am very, very critical of the way this was done, it's also true that we should be realistic that any transition -- >> you know, just don't say that -- there will be consequences, but when it is on us, because we make a voluntary decision about how we're going to execute and innocent lives are lost, that is not subject to being washed away because it's, quote, realistic. there's two issues here, one is what's our long-term policy there, there is fault that can be ascribed all around. but to take inaction where in one fell swoop with no consultation, no forewarning we betray allies who have been with us and we leave innocent people at the mercy of people who are going to get them, i don't get that. that's not what i call american. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is

expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. palmer for your service. thank you for being here and sharing your story with us. >> could you tell us in how many nations our military is deployed? >> we have some form, usually special forces, of u.s. military deployed to more than 150 countries. it's effectively the whole world. >> more than 150, okay. >> those are small. we have bases in about 70 or 80 countries, but those are larger contingents. >> could you touch on some of the partners that play in the region, just brief, general history. >> of the partners in the region. >> the players in this conflict, in the region. >> yeah, i think the important thing to understand about this specific issue is that turkey

has long had a tense relationship with the kurdish population in the southeast and there's long been kurds over the border, back in 1998, syria and turkey came to an agreement where, you know, they agreed to not allow any cross-border kurdish cooperation and operations and it worked effectively. my understanding is that moscow has -- using that agreement as the basis for its negotiations with turkey. >> is it true that we've been in this conflict in a sense arming what would be both sides of this conflict over the -- >> well, yes. arming many sides in the conflict, unfortunately. especially early on in the process before the kinks had been worked out. we cooperated with our arab gulf

allies in delivers aid to rebel groups and that got into the hands of some people that we should want to keep arms out of. >> and you touched on this before because you briefly, again, explain the concept of mission creep and how it applies in this region in the sense of what was our original authorization and being there, why were our troops deployed, did they accomplish their mission, and what authorizes them to stay there. >> in general, it's very easy to insert u.s. military into a situation and it's much, much harder to get them out because when conditions change, new objectives arrive and, you know, as the congressman was saying, there are risks inherent in any withdrawal and any change in policy and so syria is one of the messiest conflicts on the planet. >> what's the authorization that

had us there? >> there is no legal sanction for u.s. military troops in syria. >> okay. you mentioned concerns about the abruptness of the withdrawal. would you say that this was the right thing -- what was right, but maybe the how -- >> right, i think it's in u.s. interest to distangle itself from conflicts in the middle east. we should not go willy-nilly into these conflicts. what was the rest of your question? >> authorization for conflict. >> we need to authorize the use of force. it's something that congress has been disincentivized to do and the executive branch is willing to aveil itself of that lack of constraint.

>> i only have a minute. a lot of this testimony today was written before the news of the day, this is a very developing story. it's a couple weeks old. i was happy to here a lot of discussion among the witnesses about the importance of diplomacy and today it seems like news is breaking in which diplomatic efforts since the withdrawal are having perhaps some effect. just one month ago today, the president was at the u.n. talking about how in 80% of the countries of the world people of faith are persecuted. and it is, you know, when you sit in our position, your heart goes out because you wish you could help everybody in the world, yet you know we have limited resources. could you explain when it comes to military activity how the

constitution defines us to prioritize that process. >> the constitution gives congress the authority to determine the nation's involvement in hostilities aboard and the executive, short of a dealing with an eminent threat that he has to preempt, the president directs those and tends to decide when they end which is unfortunate. yes, there are a lot of things going on in the world. i have a pretty narrow conception of what the u.s. military should be used for. i think it does them a disservice to deploy them in situations that don't rise to the level of a serious threat to this nation's security. >> the gentle lady from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you for holding this hearing today and for waving me on so i could participate. the critical role of congressional oversight cannot

be overstated. once again, this administration's disregard for the humanity and dignity of the world's most vulnerable is on full display. over the last several days we have witnessed the bloodshed, displacement and humanitarian crisis that can result from the reckless and self-serving decisions by this administration. we have heard about the military and national security implications of the administration's removal of u.s. forces from syria. however, it's equally important to center the lived experiences, an agency of our kurdish allies whose value cannot and should not be measured by their contributions to u.s. interests. ms. torres, based on your national security expertise, how would a diplomatic approach on the front end paired with a strategic troop withdrawal have avoided this violence in the first place?

>> thank you, representative presley. first off and to take a step back, as a former diplomat, i have participated in the policy process under both administrations. i participated and been on the other side of our administration's leaders, having discussions and debates on foreign policy, and on discussions on what happens next, assessments of intelligence, assessments of what's happening on the ground, talking to local stakeholders. i think that right now what is happening is a lack of a policy process, lack of a national security process. and so with that in mind, i think that this entire decision has been marred with a lock of an understanding of what's happening on the ground. it's difficult for me to say what should have happened, but what i can say is there wasn't a policy process around what should have happened.

>> very good. your organization, save the children, is on the front lines of helping those who are now displaced due to this humanitarian crisis. how will the increased instability in northeast syria affect the ability of organizations like save the children and others to operate in the northeast? >> a lot depends on how things develop. but right now we're facing the possibility of the -- the supply lines, the roads that we use to get supplies into northeast syria to reach populations will be blocked or so insecure that we will not be able to reach certain populations. our national staff is concerned. we face the possibility that they will themselves become refugees, some of them already have, or idps, rather, and we will be faced with a smaller workforce, we face the possibility of existing camps where people are able to arrive,

becoming overcrowded. the sanitation services t water services being inadequate to reach the population. we face the prospect of not knowing where people are and not knowing how to reach them and even if we do know how to reach them, not being able to cross the violence in order to reach them. it makes an already volatile and difficult operational environment even more volatile, more uncertain and it makes our mission to reach the most vulnerable children that much more challenging. >> thank you. i want to focus on another nonmilitary consequence of this abrupt withdrawal. a key component of the defeat isis campaign was to help provide local communities with stabilization assistance, to enable displaced persons to safely return to their homes. according to the state department, stabilization can

include, quote, efforts to establish silver security, delivered targeted services and establish a foundation for the return of displaced people. ms. torres, would you agree with that characterization? >> yes, i would zbl. >> and can you discuss how it helps stabilization efforts in northeast syria? >> translator: by supporting the local administrations and to some extent assist in that aspect to support local administrations. and the stability and security

will be further provided. and return a comeback for isis will not be allowed. that included rehab at a timing or educating the society. and we had some certain programs to deradicalize isis families. but the turkish government attack all of this was destroyed. now isis is re-emerging, and the safe zone massacres are ongoing. and the turkish threats against slaughtering still continue.

under what international law turkish government has been using f-16s to attack us. to your partners who have been fighting against isis. american weapons are being used against us. with what authority crossing the border of another country and killing attacks against us when we have no threat. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins is recognized. >> is it a factual statement that america has large numbers of troops in the region on the ground out there?

>> yes, sir. >> when we discuss what's referred to as a withdrawal of troops -- and let me say that i clearly understand that america is conflicted on this. we seek a righteous position on this. what we discuss was referred to as a withdrawal of troops and we still have massive numbers of troops in the region, would it be fair to stay that this is a movement of troops within the region? >> yes. >> is there a chance that a newly established buffer zone would stabilize? >> there is a chance. we have to see. >> okay. i'd like to focus, if we could, i would like to ask your opinion, good sir, regarding where we are considering the

totality of circumstance as a nation with this turkey/syria situation. on the one hand, american citizens that we serve desires us to disengage from unnecessary warfare overseas. on the other hand, we tend to stand by our allies. this is the conflict we face as a body and as a people. so let's talk about our allies. is turkey, in your opinion, conducting yourself according to nato standards? >> no. >> do you think turkey should be held accountable for any reported violations of geneva conventions during this conflict? >> yes. >> do you think turkey should be subject to removal from nato? should its status be rescinded

from nato? >> that could be a tool. >> given the very precarious nature of the military engagement in this region of the world and the conflict that we face as a nation regarding our own role, our own righteous role within this ongoing generation's long conflict, in your opinion, sir, let us step past how we got to where we are and would you share with us in my remaining two minutes here how you would envision a righteous solution to where we are. let's forego how we got here. we could debate that. what's the answer?

how do we move forward, advise the american people america is watching. >> i think over the medium to long term it makes sense to re-evaluate our approach to the region. that includes which countries we're closely allied with and cooperate with and which ones we're set against. i think we should have an arm's length approach to the region. we have rapid response capabilities to deploy in crisis situations and we should take advantage of that by and large. i think the saudi relationship needs to be re-evaluated. i think they act against u.s. interests pretty substantially and for various reasons we've been unwilling to engage in that re-evaluation. >> comment, if you will, on turkey's emerging, increased relationship to includes military relationship, including

the purchase of military hardware from russia and their -- as of yesterday their newly negotiated posture with russia. comment on that, please, in my remaining 30 seconds. >> that's another reason we should re-evaluate the way we do alliances particularly in nato. the habit has been to add more nato allies in the -- with the way that people adds friends on facebook. the extent the to which we'll have to adopt those interests as their allies -- >> thank you for that classification. in my remaining ten seconds, yes or no, would it be fair to consider that turkey is really the responsible actor here? >> they are one responsible actor. >> thank you, sir. i yield, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. and i would like to recognize myself for the next five minutes and thank all of the panelists for being here.

i appreciate your efforts both here today and in your professional and your experience. mr. palmer, thank you for your service, it's appreciated. miss ahmed, thank you for being here. i want to focus most of my questions on the humanitarian needs as they were before this incident and after. most of us have had the good fortune to be able to go to the middle east and go to refugee camps and talk to syrian refugees and hear about their real-life dilemmas of leaving everything they knew in a war situation. i don't think most americans -- at least i wasn't until i had that experience, realized -- and most americans don't realize the history and the delicacy of relationships in the middle east since at least world war i. and the question of whether the

kurds should have had a state or not. so in all of this delicate foreign policy, the human aspects of this are getting missed in large part and the demands you had. so tell me what the humanitarian needs and demands were before the incursion and talk a little bit about what's happened since. >> in a sense, the demands are the same because the fundamental asks from the humanitarian community is there be a cease sayings of hostilities. that the protection be upheld and humanitarians be given unfettered access to people in need. and i think those are the three sort of big policy asks from the humanitarian community, you know, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. the difference is a difference i would say in scale because now

we have additional displaced people. we have a larger population to serve and we have more constraints. if there is not a permanent ending of hostilities in this area, we will struggle to continue to provide services to displaced people and refugees. we will have bigger funding needs. we will face different cross-line challenges, supply lines, different suppliers not wanting to supply us. we've withdrawn a number of our international staff. they have certain expertise that local staff does not have. so, for instance, health services are being curtailed in northeast syria because much of that comes from outside expertise. within that psychosocial support, which we've seen to be a growing need, you don't have that kind of specialization

necessarily locally and local staff have their own threat and is challenges that they're feeling in terms of safety and so the stability of our workforce is also made more vulnerable. but fundamentally, you know, it's those three things, humanitarian access, ending of hostilities and, you know, respect for international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians. >> i want to focus with the little time i have left, if you could add anything on northeast syria. on october 18th. amnesty international reported that turkish backed forces were conducting indiscriminate attacks in residential areas. aid groups working in the region described the u.s. withdrawal has created a combination of worst-case scenarios in the northeastern part of syria

happening all at once. is this an accurate description, knowing that a cease-fire is what you want first, but after the cease-fire, you're going to deal with a world that hopefully allows some autonomous governing for the kurds, but that has not been the tendency in these kind of military imbalances. >> for us, again, whether it's -- whether it's the turks, whether it's, you know, who -- whichever the party the conflict is, the request is the same and this further complicates it because it's an additional party to the conflict and, yes, it will -- it has and will exacerbate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. >> any comments on the humanitarian --

>> translator: many civilians were harmed when the turkish government attacked us. a city has been destroyed because of these attacks its raised. 80,000 people are outside without home. they have nowhere to go. this needs to be taken very serious, this situation. those who want to return, those who are lucky to have their house, they're not allowed to go back. these attacks are not allowing

people to return so they are forcing them to be displaced. this cannot be called cease-fire. this is condemnation of the war. this means that more people will be killed. it's been told that we saved kurds from being massacred. but the important thing is their future should be protected by constitutional recognition and their basic rights. this administration underground should recognized formally, kurdish ruled. because all people of the region are in this administration. it's democratic. it supports the integrity of syria. >> thank you. i appreciate it. the chair would now like to

recognize the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to participate in this committee. is it to the goal of the syrian democratic council to establish a sovereign country for kurds? >> translator: independent country is not the part of our project. within the syrian context, we want a decentralized government. the local administration set up in syria.

the regions, these all should be in a decentralized system. . >> would there be one government and who would provide the military defense of this decentralized government? >> it can be one or local as >> translator: defense can be won, but local as well. living in that region are part u of the general forces, syrian m forces. >> thank you very much. has anybody in the u.s. government who you can name saya that's the policy of the united states? to establish that.

>> translator: the u.s. so far hasn't told us a clear policy in terms of syria to us. they told us the syrian people will determine their future. what is the u.s. for syrian, this was not communicated to us. as the syrian people we gave them a project. and we wanted the u.s. to support, we tried to get u.s. support in this framework. syrian decentralized and free sr syria. hopee from the he kurds of this, but no promises

from anybody in the u.s. government, to establish that? thank you very much.palmer mr. palmer, where did isis get the weapons that you were fighting against?? >> be careful about divulging any classified information. >> can you tell us what's been ? publicly available about where isis got their weapons? >> i need to be careful about stepping on intelligence gathering information. >> where did the kurds get their weapons? >> that fell under our united 'r states program. >> wee provided them weapons?poa >> yes, congressman. >> so we've not said we're goin. to take the weapons away, t correct?hrouing >> not to my knowledge. >> can you walk us through the beginning of the civil war in syria and what the u.s.

involvement was? >> protests in 2011. their harsh response by the ompn regime. it slowly turned into an armed . rebellion partially because at l the time wel had been completin our surge in iraq. >> 45 seconds. >> e can you tell us what the u.s. involvement was in the roups beginning? >> early on we ended up aiding e armed rebel groups in syria. >> and this was before the befr emergence of eisis? >> it's difficult to say. yes, technically before the big rise in 2013 and 2014, but, of t course, isis is really just an y outgrowth of the sunni insurgency that rose up to fight u.s. forces in iraq. it's hard to say what the beginning point would be. >> in my retaining time i'd like to ask ms. ahmed how many kurds have been displaced as a resultt of the civil war? did the kurds support the civil war at the beginning. asad h are the kurds better off or

worse off now that assad has been destabilized? >> translator: kurds have established a democratic syria. in my hometown there used to be 800,000 people living. internally displaced people running away from the regime. syrian government areas were coming too our region. there were around 100,000.

attacked that area and those became refugees. but for example, people are living in ten kilometers distance of their homes but the turkish people are not allowing people to return to their homes. they s-- the families of these islamic groups are set up in kurdish houses. they're massacring the kurds every day. they're killing the kurds. kidnapping. seize their properties. kill their -- burn their trees. properties all stolen. they carry out the policy of burning up everything in my hometown at the moment.

ie 800,000 kurds. o in the region after the reason w incursion, there are a number of people who are now refugees. people of kabani. including arabs, they were displaced. that ar the policy of ethnic cleansing, massacring is being carried out in these places. >> my time is longly expired. e yes, i'll yield a minute to mr. cloud. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. torres, you said something that i wanted to just clear up. you said that no official foreign policy process was followed.epartmen

>> thank you, to clarify, i am no longer in the state ces tha department. reflecting on some of the experiences i've had in the past. >> okay.y. i wanted to make clear who doest set foreign policy ino our country. >> so it's actually a little complicated right now to determine that. >> really, is it? >> i mean -- >> i think everybody in america knows who sets foreign policy for our ountrynation. who defines foreign policy for a our t country. >> the president. >> okay. would he therefore also define the official foreign policy process? >> yes with advising from option departments and agencies, including the state department. >> doesn't he have the option ti choose who he gets advice from? >> that's the president's prerogative. >> okay. i just wanted to clear this up.

especially with what's going on in the basement, with officials who don't seem to be sure and aware who sets foreign policy for our country. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for a five minutes. >> thank igyou,il mr. chairman.a the president often likes to say on the campaign trail that we'r. going to win so much that we would againget tired of it and him to stop.p.there mr. president, stop. there are kurdish allies who are dying in the streets because of your decision against the advice of those around you to pull out of syria. in fact, the only real winners presisis, syria, assad, iran, turkey, and putin.urn o we've talked about the .. president's decision and how it would enable the return of isis. the syrian regime is back

filling in areas that we have controlled for quite some time. mr. torres, have you seen evidence of that already, territory that had been held by the united states that has not been held by assad for years being reclaimed by the syrian government? >> can you repeat the last part? >> the land that was being held. by the kurds with support from the u.s., is syria taking over parts of that? is that areas that have not been controlled by syria for quite some time? >> we have seen reports of that. but i might want to defer to my colleague. we have seen reports of that. >> in president trump's cease fire deal with turkey, turkey denied it was actually aho ceas fire. seemingly failed to hold. in the parameters of its safe zone so unclear it would beeco almostmmit impossible to enforc anyways. testimony yesterday, it appears

the u.s. delegation didn't evenh use a map when negotiating the safe zone with turkey. yes, my colleague is right that the president is the arbitrator of foreign policy. it's unfortunate it looks like the keystone cops are the ones that driving our foreign policy right now. t yesterday, turkish president erdogan and president putin agreed to remove kurdish forces from the syrian turkish border, making putin the key power broker in the region.so wha ms. ahmed, can you tell us what your reaction is to that deal that took place yesterday? >> translator: this deal forces withdrawal from the border area.

so up to 20 kilometers, this area is left to turkey. that poses serious threat to our safety and security. because the regime has not done any democratic changes so far. and the same mentality, forces also pose a threat for us. turkish and russian patrol and the regime it's a dangerous situation for us, for the kurds. you either have to withdraw or wee going to let turkey attack. >> thank you. seen lmer, i think you've the tv coverage of yachu.s. bas

being overrun. i'm how does that make yourse feel? >> i'm only going to speak to my experience in 2017. i'm not qualified to speak -- py >> b i'm not asking you for an official capacity, i'm asking you as a person who has served the government and our country in a patriotic way. t how does that make you feel? >> i'm testifying to my experience. >> do you have any comments in that area? >> i think on our end on behalf of the center, and as an american, i think that it's difficult to turn away from allies who we have depended on for a very long time to in a way protect us from the terrorist dq threat that we face emanating from isis and iraq and syria. o to see that happenen so abruptly and without a policy k and without a process and diplomacy, it was hard to

swallow. >> mr. chairman, thank you for having this hearing. it's repeat over and over, the foreign policy mistakes of this administration, what has transpired in ukraine where crimes were committed, yet the continued coverup by those involved and those who will disa support this president to know end regardless of the obvious wrongt doing is disheartening t all of us. sses >> the gentleman yields back. i would like to thank all of our witnesses who have come here today. majority ands your minority wits thank you for your excellent testimony. ms. ahmed thank you for being here and traveling such a long way to provide the perspective which i think only you could provide. so we are extremely grateful for your courage and willingness to come here today. without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions by the witnesses to the chair whice will be forwarded to the witnesses for response.

i'll ask our witnesses to respond as promptly as you're able if you receive additional questions. this hearing is now adjourned, thank you.

this saturday, on american history tv. on lectures in hospital. at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the 1981 trial of jean harris, the woman accused of murdering a doctor. >> she was smart. she did well in high school. she went to smith college. she graduated phi beaieta kapps. she testifies he hits her in ways he had never hit her before. there's no evidence he had hit her prior to this.

>> at 10:00, on reel america. president richard nixon's november 3rd, 1969, silent majority speech. >> tonight, to you, the great silent majority. my fellow americans, i ask for your support. i pledged in my campaign for the presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. i have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. >> sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, john lindbergh on his time as a hostage in iran. >> what says in your culture that permits you to detain a guest against his will? >> and at 8:00, on the presidency, ronald reagan's white house political affairs director. frank donatello on reagan's campaigns for the white house. >> reagan just cleans up in new

hampshire. and such momentum that it's a good thing we won by such a big margin because we already spent most of our money. >> explore our nation's past on american history tv. every weekend on cspan 3. if i'm a socialist, i really am not caring too much about popular opinion or pleasing a consumer. in fact, you know, when we socialize things like healthcare, they just say everybody's going to get it. you'll no longer be bankrupt and won't have to worry about your bills but you'll have to have rationing. >> sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on after words. in his latest work, the case against socialism, kentucky republican senator rand paul talks about the history of socialism and argues there's a new threat of socialist thinking on the rise in america. he's interviewed by matt gates of florida. >> it seems as though you're making the argument that a country that is more socialist

becomes more selfish. >> i think that is true. it's an irony in a way. they would profess to be, you know, it's for the other man. everything is for someone else. in the end it's driven by selfishness. >> watch afterwards, sunday night at 9:00 eastern on book tv on cspan 2. next, democratic presidential candidate maryann williamson. she talks about her proposal to create a u.s. department of peace if elected in 2020. from the national press club, this is an hour. >> welcome to the national press club. my name is alison fitzgerald. i'm the washington investigations editor at the associated press. and i'm the 112th president of the national press club. our guest today, mary